NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.

These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake.

Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.

"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."

'Persistent cookies' pre-installed
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 -- likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.

Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.

"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.

Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.

But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.

In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies -- those that aren't automatically deleted right away -- unless there is a "compelling need."

A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.

Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."

E-mail and phone callsThe Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.

Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.

But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.

The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."

Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.

The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.

In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The CIA and NSA have been caught with their hands in the "illegal cookie" jar, and the explanation : We didn't know Who are these idiots, are they all from Crawford Texas

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

_________________I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. George W. BushDESTROY THE QURAN OR BE DESTROYED BY IT

Last month, when the New York Times revealed to the world that the Bush administration had a top secret National Security Agency program that monitored communications between al Qaeda terrorists and their U.S.-based agents, it strongly condemned the operation as a dangerous and possibly illegal invasion of privacy.

To date, *al Qaeda* cells that have been discovered by anyone have fallen into three groups. Group one is Mossad cover operations (this is the largest group, well over half), the second is the *dreaming groups* where a group is targeted as *al Quaida* but has no signifigant relationship to anything (i.e the Buffalo NY group, which was a bunch of teenagers who went to a training camp, appearently just for the adventure, since they never showed the slightest intention of doing anything). The last (and smallest group) are various insurgent groups, some Islamic militants, others just nasty people, who are tied to *al Qaeda* simply because American's relate to the term. They show varying levels of attachment to Islamic insurgency, but none have ever been proven to be tied to Bin Laden in any but the broadest terms.

No authentic al Qaeda cell has ever been discovered. Bin Laden himself never used the term al Qaeda until it was explained to him that this is what Americans called him.

Meanwhile the Neo-Cons have used this same unconstitutional invasion of privacy to monitor US citizens who disapprove of the Administration, it's policies, or its agenda. It has used this program to monitor UN officials, foreign diplomats with no connection to Islam, or the Islamic agenda, and who knows how many completely innocent people who are simply caught in the system.

buckshot wrote:

However, the Old Gray Lady wasn't nearly as upset over a much broader surveillance program under the Clinton administration, which routinely monitored millions of phone calls between U.S. citizens without a court ordered warrant.

Hmm. I have never heard this. Where were the brave Republicans then? They made much ado about Bill's sexual preferences, but in all the time he was under impeachment threrat no one ever brought this up. While I don't doubt it, he was never caught while in office, never accused by anyone, and no charges ever brought against him, officialy or unofficially, so, as we say in the US, *no harm, no foul* If he had done this, and been caught, the Noe-Cons so adament about impeaching him would have seriously been on it like a pit-bull. Give me a fricking break. I was actually alive during the Clinton Administration, Bucksnot.

buckshot wrote:

In fact, the paper called the blanket invasion of privacy a "necessity" - even though it was carried out without the justification provided by the 9/11 attacks.

The American Thinker web site has unearthed Times quotes from 1999, when the paper was reacting to reports on the NSA's Echelon project under Bill Clinton, which randomly trolled U.S. telecommunications looking for trouble.

So what these desparate fools are saying is that a Congress who was attempting to impeach a sitting Prez over a hummer had evidence he violated explicit laws, they chose not to press the issue. Why is that, Bucksnot? WHY? Use your fucking head, you damn loser. This is like saying I found you in bed with my wife but beat you up for kicking my dog, and gave you a condom to boot. It simply goes beyond the pale to believe this tripe. If the Congress had known, or had even reasonable suspicion that Clinton was engaged in such behavior they woulda chewed him into hamburger.

buckshot wrote:

"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists," the Times explained helpfully.

Another dipshit statement. The code-kiddies had Echelon cracked and folded before it was ever active, and it was useless the day it was turned on. We never hear about it because it is so ineffective. Software like Waste, and even the newest versions of Eudora encrypt far beyond a neccesary margin of safety. For heaven's sake, even such easy to apply software as MIrc encrypts now, and someone who really is using the web as a communication device for sensitive data will encrypt far beyond a 12 year old chatting about homework. Which is something you obviously didn't do here.

buckshot wrote:

The same report quoted an NSA official assuring Times readers "that all Agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional, legal and ethical standards.”

These days, however, the Old Gray Lady doesn't like to talk about Echelon. In the dozens of stories on the Bush NSA operation since reporter James Risen "broke" the story on December 16, the Times has mentioned the older NSA program only once.

In a December 22 report by Timesman Scott Shane, the paper dismissed "reports on an agency program called Echelon [asserting] that the agency and its counterparts in the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia somehow intercepted all world communications," calling such claims "exaggerated."

Opps, you even admit Echelon is useless.

So what are you saying here Bucksnot? That Clinton was *as bad as, if not worse than, Mr Bush*? Ok, Bucksnot, lets say your right. If the Neo-Cons had all this tidy and very illegal evidence about Clinton why did they try and impeach him over lying about a blowjob?

Clearly, to anyone who gives it a moments thought, something is missing here, Buchsnot. There is a REASON that the Neo-Cons chose not to pursue an impeachment proceding based on very obvious abuse of power, and violations of the first degree, and chose instead to dig up Whitewater (which was completely legal, when it all came out) and a hummer in the Oval Office.

Not even a *nice try* on this one. You are very foolish. Why do you even bother? You constantly get ripped to shreds when you bring this garbage here, and yet you persist in putting this swill on an obviously anti-Bush board. Are you really that stupid? I don't go over to Bush-is-up-my-ass-and-I-love-it.com and post shit, because I know I would just get abused, no matter how true the information I posted was. And yet, you are stupid enough to bring OBVIOUS swill, with a relation to reality that only a psychotic could recognise, and post it on a board where it will instantly be ripped to shreds by umm *facts* (you know, those points of reality that are commonly agreed to be true).